Irrelevant considering they are the recipients of a salary, not a wage, hence breaking down productivity - how you even quantify that is beyond me - per hour is a pointless exercise. I have a good friend who works in auditing who works more hours than that and gets a fraction of what bankers earn, but the point is that he's on a salary, not a wage.

Not irrelevant at all.

You *should* occasionally break it down per hour. If you find that you are working 100 hours a week but pulling the hourly wage of a mcdonalds worker...you are probably doing some thing wrong.

A salary is convenient for budgeting on both sides--you know how much you are going to make and your company knows how much it is going to pay in the next month whether business is booming and you are pulling 100 hour weeks or business is slow and you go home after 40.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the $/hr situation. It would be idiotic not to use hourly wage as a decision making factor. If you could take a 10% pay cut but work half the hours (hence increasing the hourly pay), there are quite a lot of people who would do it without question. Those extra hours might even give you time to start a side business and diversify your income stream while more than replacing the lost 10%.

Irrelevant considering they are the recipients of a salary, not a wage, hence breaking down productivity - how you even quantify that is beyond me - per hour is a pointless exercise. I have a good friend who works in auditing who works more hours than that and gets a fraction of what bankers earn, but the point is that he's on a salary, not a wage.

I think it's pretty hard to justify these huge salaries that fresh faced graduates get, especially in banking. But I have to be honest: I'm deeply unimpressed with the banking industry, and the capabilities of many bankers.

I guess I've been thinking about my paycheque incorrectly for over a decade. Damn.

I think it's pretty hard to justify these huge salaries that fresh faced graduates get, especially in banking. But I have to be honest: I'm deeply unimpressed with the banking industry, and the capabilities of many bankers.

Not irrelevant at all. You *should* occasionally break it down per hour. If you find that you are working 100 hours a week but pulling the hourly wage of a mcdonalds worker...you are probably doing some thing wrong. A salary is convenient for budgeting on both sides--you know how much you are going to make and your company knows how much it is going to pay in the next month whether business is booming and you are pulling 100 hour weeks or business is slow and you go home after 40. That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the $/hr situation. It would be idiotic not to use hourly wage as a decision making factor. If you could take a 10% pay cut but work half the hours (hence increasing the hourly pay), there are quite a lot of people who would do it without question. Those extra hours might even give you time to start a side business and diversify your income stream while more than replacing the lost 10%.

Iguess all consultants are doing it wrong. Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk

You *should* occasionally break it down per hour. If you find that you are working 100 hours a week but pulling the hourly wage of a mcdonalds worker...you are probably doing some thing wrong.

A salary is convenient for budgeting on both sides--you know how much you are going to make and your company knows how much it is going to pay in the next month whether business is booming and you are pulling 100 hour weeks or business is slow and you go home after 40.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the $/hr situation. It would be idiotic not to use hourly wage as a decision making factor. If you could take a 10% pay cut but work half the hours (hence increasing the hourly pay), there are quite a lot of people who would do it without question. Those extra hours might even give you time to start a side business and diversify your income stream while more than replacing the lost 10%.

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between those receiving a salary (professional) and those receiving a wage (labour) - you can, if you want, break down your salary into its hourly worth, but that in no way validates an argument of productivity per hour, because ultimately you're not receiving a wage that is indexed against your hourly production, you're receiving a salary that presumes professionalism to your given occupation. The logic behind the professional as opposed the labourer is that he receives a set amount of money irrespective of actual hours worked because it is assumed that he or she works in order to achieve the conclusion of his or her task with a certain work ethic that is exclusive to the professional class, hence the fact that it may take a solicitor 5 or 10 hours to complete a specific task is by and large irrelevant: this is the economic basis of the professional principle.

He's talking absolute nonsense if he thinks a professionals worth is indexed against their hourly productivity. God, what absolute rubbish.

So then consultants are not professionals, they are labour? Btw, Wage and Hour actually have a definition of "exempt employee" and what properties of employment are needed. Needless to say your definition does not match theirs. Who knew?

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between those receiving a salary (professional) and those receiving a wage (labour) - you can, if you want, break down your salary into its hourly worth, but that in no way validates an argument of productivity per hour, because ultimately you're not receiving a wage that is indexed against your hourly production, you're receiving a salary that presumes professionalism to your given occupation. The logic behind the professional as opposed the labourer is that he receives a set amount of money irrespective of actual hours worked because it is assumed that he or she works in order to achieve the conclusion of his or her task with a certain work ethic that is exclusive to the professional class, hence the fact that it may take a solicitor 5 or 10 hours to complete a specific task is by and large irrelevant: this is the economic basis of the professional principle.

I don't know how you manage to be an elitist condescending ass and feel so self-righteous about it. What about folks who do piecework? Untouchables I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaneB

But I have to be honest: I'm deeply unimpressed with the banking industry, and the capabilities of many bankers.

Thanks for reluctantly being honest. We all really appreciate it very much.

I don't know how you manage to be an elitist condescending ass and feel so self-righteous about it. What about folks who do piecework? Untouchables I suppose.

With all due respect, you can pick any book that details the history of business in the western world, or for that matter, the development of capitalism as an economic system - I'm certainly not one for abstract principles or poncy intellectual definitions, but there is without a shadow of doubt a clear and palpable difference between the ethic of the professional (or what is traditionally classed as the 'professional') and the ethic of the labourer (of what has traditionally been classed as the 'labourer'). If you, personally, find these terms offensive then there really isn't much I can say, but to denigrate me as a 'condescending ass' is philistinism pure and simple. Ask yourself this - and again, as a I said before, I detest poncy intellectualism, but this simple exercise will surely show you the difference - is there not a difference between the man who lays down his wares after a shift of work, and the professional who works until his task of work is completed? Economists traditionally delineated that difference as one of the professional against the labourer, and it's a difference that permeates industry even today in the form of salaries and wages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenanyu

Thanks for reluctantly being honest. We all really appreciate it very much.

This may be shock to your provincial little world, but believe it or not, many, many people - from industrialists to academics - have been severely critical of the banking industry.

So then consultants are not professionals, they are labour? Btw, Wage and Hour actually have a definition of "exempt employee" and what properties of employment are needed. Needless to say your definition does not match theirs. Who knew?

They'd say that a consultant falls in line with the moral and ethical stipulations of the professional. Nobody says they receive an hourly wage , they say they receive an hourly rate, a money sum given for their expert advice or input.